Coryphanthas now being named Pelecyphora?

Anything relating to Cacti or CactiGuide.com that doesn't fit in another category should be posted under General.
Post Reply
User avatar
C And D
Posts: 2128
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 1:51 am
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Contact:

Coryphanthas now being named Pelecyphora?

Post by C And D »

I'm a little behind the times for new plant nomenclature and tend to hold on to old names that I'm comfortable with.

So when I saw that Coryphanthas and Escobaria were being called Pelecyphora I was bewildered by the unlikely combination

I was going to start a discussion with me knowing nothing before jumping in, but decided to take a look at Google first

Still not convinced it's a good name change, but it's based on DNA comparisons and creating Family Clades.

The Chart provides the Clade Family Tree
oo_636719.jpg
oo_636719.jpg (106.17 KiB) Viewed 1230 times
On another topic, Ortegocactus is now a Cochemiea?
Are Neollydias now Cochemiea now as well?

Can DNA really sort out the family Tree with absolute accuracy?
Check out our plant and seed lists
http://www.CandDplants.com

Craig and Denise Fry
User avatar
Aiko
Posts: 2369
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:26 pm
Location: the Netherlands

Re: Coryphanthas now being named Pelecyphora?

Post by Aiko »

I personally don't care. It is the species name that I regard as valuable, not the genus name.
Echinocactus or Homalocephala, I only care about the texensis and just stick with the genus name I am accustomed to...
User avatar
Minime8484
Posts: 1395
Joined: Thu May 12, 2011 12:09 am
Location: Chandler, AZ

Re: Coryphanthas now being named Pelecyphora?

Post by Minime8484 »

I think the paper (2022) you are referencing proposed maintaining Coryphantha by excluding Coryphantha macromeris (which was previously recognized as a 'wonky' taxon having been also assigned its own genus, Lepidocoryphantha). The rest of Coryphantha remains as is.

However, it was all of Escobaria (plus macromeris) that they propose to subsume into Pelecyphora (simply because they have to follow botanical name rules by using the oldest name...which, unfortunately, is Pelecyphora, and not Escobaria).

With regards to Ortegocactus and Neolloydia, those two have indeed been subsumed into reconstructed Cochemiea (based on a 2021 study).
User avatar
C And D
Posts: 2128
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 1:51 am
Location: Costa Mesa, CA
Contact:

Re: Coryphanthas now being named Pelecyphora?

Post by C And D »

I think you are correct on all of that Minime

I now see what's going on, Escobaria was named Pelecyphora originally
Check out our plant and seed lists
http://www.CandDplants.com

Craig and Denise Fry
User avatar
MikeInOz
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:21 am
Location: Sth east Australia

Re: Coryphanthas now being named Pelecyphora?

Post by MikeInOz »

Just saying, don't assume that the DNA people know what they are doing. A few years back one particular orchid was said to be related to a hybrid from 2 completely unrelated parents. Don't go changing labels too quickly. They often change names again later.
User avatar
MrXeric
Posts: 559
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2020 10:31 pm
Location: California, USDA zone 10a

Re: Coryphanthas now being named Pelecyphora?

Post by MrXeric »

C And D wrote: Mon Feb 06, 2023 6:32 pm Can DNA really sort out the family Tree with absolute accuracy?
Probably not. Different genetic markers (and the algorithms used to analyze them) may give different results. I believe the study you cite uses markers from chloroplast DNA which is maternally inherited, so the paternally inherited DNA is not being examined.

That said, I think DNA analysis is an important tool for reconstructing evolutionary relationships (the primary goal!) and can tell us, the "hobbyists", some interesting information about our plants. But I agree that morphology should continue to play a role in how we classify our plants. For the most part I like to use names determined by the latest science, but I am still not sure whether I like "lumping" or "splitting" where applicable, like with Parodia over Acanthocephala, Eriocephala, Notocactus, etc. and Echinopsis over Acanthocalycium, Lobivia, Matucana, Oreocereus, etc. It's interesting to see how all these (former?) genera are so closely related and come from the same evolutionary line within the family, but yet some of these have quite distinct morphological differences that can be characteristic enough to preserve a genus.
DaveW
Posts: 7376
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2012 2:36 pm
Location: Nottingham, England/UK

Re: Coryphanthas now being named Pelecyphora?

Post by DaveW »

As MrXeric says DNA can only indicate lines of ev0lution not definitely where you split the line into genera, which is simply a matter of choice as long as a genus is monophyletic, meaning not containing plants from two different ev0lutionary lines.

Arrangement of genera is classification and a matter of opinion and not binding, otherwise you would not get new classifications periodically. Classification is merely man trying to sort nature into convenient "Pidgeon Holes" it does not always want to fit.

All the "Rules" ask is for a species or genus to be legitimately published, then it is up to the individual what classification they wish to use since none are mandatory, including the latest "lumping" ones.

As Minime said, when "lumping" genera or species together the oldest published name takes priority. However simple priority does not apply, but "priority at that rank". That is why when Notocactus uelbelmannianus was lumped into Parodia it required a name change to Parodia werneri since there was already a Parodia uebelmanniana. Even though Notocactus uebelmannianus was published first, so an older name, the plant first published as a Parodia took priority.

These rules in theory are supposed to stop pointless name changes that simple priority would produce, but often do the opposite with the well known species name having to be changed because a lesser known one takes priority! Move it out of Parodia again and it reverts back to N. uebelmannianus.
Post Reply